elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to openbox9
Re: Buying out the last mile? said by openbox9:I understand, but that wasn't really how Google presented this science project.
Are you saying they learned nothing from GoogleTV?
They need to save face.
I'm sure Surewest would welcome a partnership and the PR that accompanies it. Historically they're one of the good guys, but they're still a telco. |
|
|
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by elray:Are you saying they learned nothing from GoogleTV? Huh?
said by elray:They need to save face. Save face from what? The purpose of this test lab is to demonstrate that deploying large capacity networks to targeted segments of population is feasible and capable of supporting the next generation of data consuming applications.
said by elray:I'm sure Surewest would welcome a partnership and the PR that accompanies it. Historically they're one of the good guys, but they're still a telco. My point is that Google shouldn't want to partner with an incumbent. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by elray:Are you saying they learned nothing from GoogleTV? GoogleTV failed because Google assumed the content was theirs to take, because they "do no evil" - their poo yields no odor. They failed to acknowledge that content owners, studios, networks and other distributors and stakeholders have rights, and they failed to negotiate with them in good faith before deploying the product. Looks like KC has much of the same smell.
said by elray:They need to save face. said by openbox9: Save face from what? The purpose of this test lab is to demonstrate that deploying large capacity networks to targeted segments of population is feasible and capable of supporting the next generation of data consuming applications.
Yes, that was the stated purpose. And they're failing, badly.
They assumed, because they're The Google, that they would be treated differently than any other potential overbuilder.
said by elray:I'm sure Surewest would welcome a partnership and the PR that accompanies it. Historically they're one of the good guys, but they're still a telco. said by openbox9: My point is that Google shouldn't want to partner with an incumbent.
I disagree.
Google *should* partner with local entities.
They want the megapipe in place; they don't want to operate it as ISP, or field customer service.
Surewest isn't your traditional, typical incumbent. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by elray:I disagree.
Google *should* partner with local entities.
They want the megapipe in place; they don't want to operate it as ISP, or field customer service.
Surewest isn't your traditional, typical incumbent. I think we agree that Google underestimated certain aspects of this project. You are correct that Google doesn't want to be an ISP. However, I believe Google wants to prove that it's relatively easy and affordable to deploy this infrastructure. Admitting roadblocks exist and that assistance from an existing infrastructure owner (typical incumbent or not) is needed is a failure IMO. If Google only wanted to push gigabit to the home, it would have been a lot easier and cheaper to enter into partnerships from the very beginning. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by openbox9:I think we agree that Google underestimated certain aspects of this project. You are correct that Google doesn't want to be an ISP. However, I believe Google wants to prove that it's relatively easy and affordable to deploy this infrastructure. Admitting roadblocks exist and that assistance from an existing infrastructure owner (typical incumbent or not) is needed is a failure IMO. If Google only wanted to push gigabit to the home, it would have been a lot easier and cheaper to enter into partnerships from the very beginning.
I don't think Google underestimated anything.
The stated goals of Google's Community Fiber are in no way compromised by partnering with an incumbent. "Better" internet access, Ultra high speeds with line sharing. How does bedding down with Surewest harm anything?
Deploying FTTH infrastructure is NOT easy or affordable.
Google doesn't bring anything to the table that will make it so.
In fact, they probably raise the cost by their presence. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | This experiment is about Google making a point and attempting to demonstrate that incumbents are dragging their feet with infrastructure upgrades. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by openbox9:This experiment is about Google making a point and attempting to demonstrate that incumbents are dragging their feet with infrastructure upgrades.
No, that's not what they said. Do you really think the public needs or wants Google to point out what incumbents might be guilty of?
They said they would, and I quote, "deliver":
From the Google Community Fiber announcement:
We'll deliver Internet speeds more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have access to today with 1 gigabit per second, fiber-to-the-home connections.
They aren't.
Google often just buys the better mousetrap and retires their own. Surewest already does 50Mbps FTTH, albeit in a limited footprint. Why not just invest, upgrade, and get the job done, rather than spend the next year pointing fingers? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | I read between the lines  |
|
